Jump to content

Thread Derailment


Lu Xun
 Share

Recommended Posts

Poster: Kevanovia

Post: 

This has already been reported through the Report Post function, but I am reporting this in a thread because I would like Kevanovia to have a forum to respond to such accusations, as well as elaborate on accusations he's made towards me of "using Moderation as a weapon". I have said that if he wishes to discuss my use of VM, he can open a new thread for it, but if he wishes to discuss this particular subject (thread derailment),  it would be unfair to deny him a venue.

 

I would also like to elaborate on what I believe to be the motivations behind this thread derailment. For Kevanovia's particular sphere, the Memesphere Fark Declaration thread has been negative and has seen their posters on the defensive. By shifting the topic to my use of VM, and my posting while in VM, their sphere can discuss a topic more in their favor.

Edited by Inst
  • Downvote 11

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've mentioned in Discord chat that if you wish to report me for breaking the forum rules, you're free to do so. It takes 7 warning points to get me banned from the forums. In the meanwhile, I will report whatever I find objectionable in your coalition's posting.

 

===

 

I'll also point out, that the "dangerous precedent" is exactly what I am seeking. People have complained about toxicity on the boards, and they've also complained about loose moderation. Moderators have stated that "we usually don't proactively warn people, we mainly respond to reports. If you have a problem with how the forum is being moderated, use the 'report post' button."


In another thread, Mad Max is complaining about what he feels to be overly aggressive moderation. I respond that "rules and policy in this game have been utter trash, as has been enforcement. But the level of enforcement has begun to change, and it's a learning experience for everyone." If the transition to a more civil and productive forum requires loads of warning points to be tossed out, so be it. As I've said, if you can manage to get me to 7, I'll be banned from the forums.

 

I have said elsewhere that the reason I am reporting you is not because I am personally offended by your comments; given how I am treated by much of this community, were I actually offended, I'd be long gone. I am reporting you because I am seeking a better Politics and War Forum where rules are enforced and civility is normative.

Edited by Inst
  • Downvote 2

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Witness to this supposed "derailment" of the topic, I'd like to put forth that Inst has chosen it only fitting to report Kev because he made a direct post/line of questioning at inst and did not report others, some of which are on/in/around his side, who actually made derailments.

Inst instead of taking discourse has decided to report the the one post directed against him. Which then instead of leaving it at a blind report for the moderators discretion to make a judgement, he chooses to continue in a mocking tone inform Kev he's been reported, furthering this "derailment" he take such offense to.

He then furthers this along by making a Forum Report thread and tagging Kev in it.
I feel this is an attempt to use the moderation as a weapon especially when he opens his second post with:
 

38 minutes ago, Inst said:

In the meanwhile, I will report whatever I find objectionable in your coalition's posting.

As if his own "Coalition" is immune.

Edited by Pasky Darkfire
Clairity
  • Like 1

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kevanovia said:

? As far as I know, you haven’t broken any rules. Unlike you, I don’t like to make reports that I know are a waste of moderation’s time.

Also, it’s interesting that you will only be looking out for ‘infractions’ against ‘my coalition’. By the definition, would that not be using moderation as a weapon?

As far as I am concerned, the effect of your post in the Fark thread is thread derailment, possibly for political purposes.

 

As for as moderation as a weapon, this is in the game rules:

 

Moderation as a Weapon

Using (or attempting to use) Moderation as a Weapon is against the rules and punishable by a nation strike. An example of using (or attempting to use) Moderation as a Weapon is threatening to report another player to an Administrator or Moderator unless they comply with your request or demands. If someone is in violation of the Game Rules, you are obligated as a player to notify a Game Administrator (through in-game Messaging.)


 

The example specifically given refers to moderation as a weapon existing in using cheating or other rules violations as blackmail to coerce an alliance, possibly in reference to the rumors of NPO having blackmailed EM over purported cheating. However, I will point out that, first, it's Game Rules and not Forum Rules.

 

Second, the moderation as a weapon is not fully defined beyond the example given above (I have been complaining about the rules being vague and many actions only being justified by "Alex can ban whoever he wants at any time for any reason". For instance, if moderation as a weapon was defined broadly, you simply could not report anyone in the opposing coalition or anyone for whom it is known that you have a political grudge. Recently, for instance, I've reported obscene war reasons in TFP, which I have been fighting. Then the TFP poster reported someone in Camelot, who he was also fighting. Someone also pointed out that the Camelot person started it with the insults. Both nations involved received nation strikes.


So tell me, were these people using moderation as weapons? Should they receive another nation strike for having reported each other when they were on opposite sides of the war?

  • Downvote 1

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

As a Witness to this supposed "derailment" of the topic, I'd like to put forth that Inst has chosen it only fitting to report Kev because he made a direct post/line of questioning at inst and did not report others, some of which are on/in/around his side, who made much larger derailments.

Inst instead of taking discourse has decided to report the the one post directed against him. Which then instead of leaving it at a blind report for the moderators discretion to make a judgement, he chooses to continue in a mocking tone inform Kev he's been reported, furthering this "derailment" he take such offense to.

He then furthers this along by making a Forum Report thread and tagging Kev in it.
I feel this is an attempt to use the moderation as a weapon especially when he opens his second post with:
 

As if his own "Coalition" is immune.

I was previously considering noting that this is a non-discussion forum and that you shouldn't be posting here, but as you are "adding further evidence" I won't object.

 

Please note that:

-in the thread, I noted that I was contributing myself to the thread derailment based on the series of retorts and arguments, and I had made it clear that if we wished to continue this line of conversation, Kevanovia should have started a separate thread somewhere to discuss the VM issue and presumably mock me for it.

 

-I said afterwards that I would not further contribute to thread derailment by ignoring the issue as brought up on the thread.

As I've clearly stated, if Kevanovia wishes to start a thread mocking my use of VM, I may or may not participate in it, but that would be a more appropriate venue for that particular strain of conversation, not in the Memesphere-Fark thread.

 

As for your last comment about as to my own "Coalition" being immune, I would be very delighted if this war were to go on forever because all alliance representatives have been banned from the forums and no one can actually post notifications of surrender or white peace. Not in the least, because it'd be ridiculous and alliance leaders, in general, would not be so foolish as to hit the big 7, and even if they all were, they'd be able to assign and delegate others to post the surrender / white peace thread on their behalf.

 

Warning points being thrown around is not my concern. I am ready to be banned, always have, always will be.

  • Downvote 3

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also wish to point out that Kevanovia is accusing me of using moderation as a weapon, when he's claiming that "as far as I know, you haven't broken any rules". Pointing out that it's self-contradictory is a character attack, of course, and I'd like to emphasize that this report is fundamentally a question of rather basic jurisprudence and that Kevanovia's character should have no bearing on the outcome of this report.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Inst said:

-in the thread, I noted that I was contributing myself to the thread derailment based on the series of retorts and arguments, and I had made it clear that if we wished to continue this line of conversation, Kevanovia should have started a separate thread somewhere to discuss the VM issue and presumably mock me for it.

Banter between individuals in threads is bound to happen. He made a direct line at you, you returned it, and then it ended UNTIL: You directly told him you had reported him. Which continued your derailment of the topic and assisted in verging the topic off more than Kev ever did with his one post.

11 minutes ago, Inst said:

-I said afterwards that I would not further contribute to thread derailment by ignoring the issue as brought up on the thread.

You did. And you did it twice, while continuing to derail the topic further while you said you would not derail it further. I'd also like to submit this as an admission of Guilt to the Moderators. Along with:

11 minutes ago, Inst said:

I am ready to be banned, always have, always will be.

Obviously.
 

11 minutes ago, Inst said:

As for your last comment about as to my own "Coalition" being immune, I would be very delighted if this war were to go on forever because all alliance representatives have been banned from the forums and no one can actually post notifications of surrender or white peace. Not in the least, because it'd be ridiculous and alliance leaders, in general, would not be so foolish as to hit the big 7, and even if they all were, they'd be able to assign and delegate others to post the surrender / white peace thread on their behalf.

I'd also thrust this forward as evidence that Inst does not have the best interest of the community in mind when he makes these reports. His means to an end here is nothing more than threats and his admitting that he'd much rather see everyone banned than anyone post anything, and I quote again, he finds "objectionable in your(kev's) coalition's posting" makes it clear he only has his interests at heart.

Edited by Pasky Darkfire
  • Upvote 1

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Inst said:

I also wish to point out that Kevanovia is accusing me of using moderation as a weapon, when he's claiming that "as far as I know, you haven't broken any rules". Pointing out that it's self-contradictory is a character attack, of course, and I'd like to emphasize that this report is fundamentally a question of rather basic jurisprudence and that Kevanovia's character should have no bearing on the outcome of this report.

I’m using the English language to say that you are using moderation as a weapon. I am not saying that you are breaking the rule against “using mods as a weapon” as it clearly states that one must ‘blackmail another’ in order for it to be against the rules. This is the reason I have not reported you and thus I have stated “as far as I know, you haven’t broken any rules”.

(No need to tiptoe around a ‘character attack’ on me. You can point out others fallacies and argument flaws without it being a personal attack. However, in this particular instance there is no fallacy or flaw and you likely incorrect in every regard.)

  • Upvote 2

image.gif.d80770bf646703bba00c14ad52088af9.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pasky Darkfire said:

Banter between individuals in threads is bound to happen. He made a direct line at you, you returned it, and then it ended UNTIL: You directly told him you had reported him. Which continued your derailment of the topic and assisted in verging the topic off more than Kev ever did with his one post.

You did. And you did it twice, while continuing to derail the topic further while you said you would not derail it further. I'd also like to submit this as an admission of Guilt to the Moderators. Along with:

Obviously.
 

I'd also thrust this forward as evidence that Inst does not have the best interest of the community in mind when he makes these reports. His means to an end here is nothing more than threats and his admitting that he'd much rather see everyone banned than anyone post anything, and I quote again, he finds "objectionable in your(kev's) coalition's posting. "

Of course. I've definitely admitted my involvement in derailing the thread, but I made very clear that I would not continue to engage in the VM-related argument or arguments about moderation as a weapon on that thread. I felt that Kevanovia was trying to derail the thread into a separate conversation unrelated to the thread topic and I also made it quite clear that it would stop as I would not pick up the bait.


To Kevanovia's credit, he has not continued the VM discussion (although others have tried to provoke) after I've stated that I would no longer participate on that thread discussing my VM. To his discredit, he has not shown his sincerity in mocking me for VM by opening a new thread on the topic.

 

====

 

I'd also point out that you are currently engaged in analysis, not the provision of evidence. If you would like to open up a new thread accusing me of using moderation as a weapon, please do so. You are also free to do so via the "report posts" button.

 

unknown.png (1266Ã495)

Just now, Kevanovia said:

I’m using the English language to say that you are using moderation as a weapon. I am not saying that you are breaking the rule against “using mods as a weapon” as it clearly states that one must ‘blackmail another’ in order for it to be against the rules. This is the reason I have not reported you and thus I have stated “as far as I know, you haven’t broken any rules”.

(No need to tiptoe around a ‘character attack’ on me. You can point out others fallacies and argument flaws without it being a personal attack. However, in this particular instance there is no fallacy or flaw and you likely incorrect in every regard.)

In other threads I've stated that moderation SHOULD be used as a weapon and that all political sides should be aggressive in using rules violations, forum or games, to their political advantage. It keeps people honest because they know that any rules violations will be prosecuted and all rules will be enforced.

 

Thank you for clarifying your meaning on this.

  • Downvote 1

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Inst said:

I'd also point out that you are currently engaged in analysis, not the provision of evidence. If you would like to open up a new thread accusing me of using moderation as a weapon, please do so. You are also free to do so via the "report posts" button.

I'm aiding in evidence that your self interest trumps your actual care for the rules in regards to this situation and that this is a frivolous report at best against someone in the community.

Discrediting your reason for reporting isn't really analysis, It just using what you've said here as further evidence on why this report shouldn't be taken seriously.

Edited by Pasky Darkfire
  • Upvote 2

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pasky Darkfire said:

I'm aiding in evidence that your self interest trumps your actual care for the rules in regards to this situation. And this is a frivolous report at best against someone in the community.

Discrediting your reason for reporting isn't really analysis, It just using what you've said here as further evidence on why this report shouldn't be taken seriously.

unknown.png (1266Ã495)

 

If you would like to make these arguments, ask Kevanovia to do so as he has the rights to do so. Your previous post was not provision of evidence, nor is the current one. And as I've stated repeatedly, if Kevanovia wishes to mock me for VM, he can open a thread to do so.

  • Downvote 3

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've presented my evidence, until furthermore comes to light, I'll just leave this one to Kev then.

Also, You can throw that image around all you like, mate. It's not going to stop me from saying what I need to say.

  • Upvote 1

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Inst said:

I felt that Kevanovia was trying to derail the thread into a separate conversation unrelated to the thread topic and I also made it quite clear that it would stop as I would not pick up the bait.


To Kevanovia's credit, he has not continued the VM discussion (although others have tried to provoke) after I've stated that I would no longer participate on that thread discussing my VM.

So...

You have admitted to being the one who derailed the thread, and that you viewed my post as ‘bait’ to derail the thread but ‘to my credit, didn’t derail the thread’. On top of that you have also admitted of wanting to use OOC moderation to impact your IC opposing coalition and do whatever you can to hurt people’s chances of playing this game so that the only people left are people from your coalition.

Does that about cover it? 

Like I said, stop wasting moderation’s time.

Edited by Kevanovia
  • Upvote 4

image.gif.d80770bf646703bba00c14ad52088af9.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, what spin.

 

I'm usually terse with moderation reports, because I trust the moderators to have the ability to assess the situation and make the correct judgment (which may not be mine), but let's describe the situation in detail.

 

First, why does this thread exist? Well, there's about 6 posts in that thread that's relevant.


First, you started by telling me I sucked because I went into VM. Second, I posted a rebuttal telling you I'd be seeing you in 160 turns (probably closer to 155 now). Third, someone from AK said I wasn't a real man as a consequence. Fourth, I reported the details of the conversation, then added an errata to you that, first, I wasn't going to discuss VM on that thread because it was thread derailment, and second, that you were reported for such. Next, you posted a rebuttal complaining about my announced report, and then I commented further on the thread rebuttal, as it was not the subject of VM, and I then said I wouldn't discuss the subject further on that thread.

 

unknown.png

 

This thread exists because I wanted to give you the courtesy of discussing the topic, because you seemed to have wanted to argue about the report. Normally speaking, forum reports are made without threads as the "Report Post" feature. However, since you sincerely wanted to discuss the subject, and I didn't want to let you derail that thread either, I posted a thread, and notified you with an @ so you could discuss it further here.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Firstly, this is most definitely a no-discussion forum. Seeing as this topic was created with "debate" in mind - I can't see much good coming from it to begin with.

Secondly, regarding moderation as a weapon: The moderators act out of their own judgement(s) and free wills. Reporting someone does not automatically accrue anything against them. Every report is reviewed by (usually two but sometimes more) humans and a consensus is reached before warnings are issued. So have no fear, no matter how many spam reports we receive, no one will receive a warning unless a forum rule is being broken in the reported post(s).

 

 

As a side note, I've seen a lot of reports and posts regarding moderation as a weapon / mods being shady / rules and warnings being unclear... I'm a fan of transparency so I try to communicate as much as possible regarding our processes and decisions. Feel free to DM me if you have questions or comments.

  • Like 5
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kevanovia

 

@Robot Santa

The topic was created with discussion, not debate, in mind. I've been warned for thread derailment on other forums and usually the protocol once thread derailment is suspected is for users to announce it, ask moderators to intervene, and ask the offending poster to start a new thread for the other discussion topic. This is one of the two topics ,Kevanovia implied with our conversation in the reported thread.

 

I'd also disagree with "much good coming from it". You've clarified points of moderation policy, in particular how warns are handled and decided upon. That is one of the objectives I have with starting this thread, to increase moderation transparency so that forum members know how policy (enforcement of rules) is changing and to adjust themselves to such.

 

Which brings me to the second part of my explanation to Soup Kitchen posters. In reporting Kevanovia, I do so in the context of my understanding of the present moderation regime. 

 

unknown.png

 

In my experience, including warns I have for thread derailment myself, forum warns are relatively mild. As they auto-expire in 90 days, unless they apply to players who already have high warning points, they're not really worth the time to contest. For instance, a warning to 2 points only results in 8 hours of forum suspension. Appealing 8 hours of suspension could end up taking more than 8 hours themselves, and as players are still allowed to play the game, they usually have something better to do than to bother appealing the warn.

 

Compare this to game reports, wherein the punishment could rise up to a game ban, resulting in the loss of nations that may exceed 1,800 days of age (Belisarius is 1885 days old as of this posting). Nation strikes, unlike forum warning points, never expire. Consequently the stakes are much higher when such things are reported.

 

Lastly, as the moderator has pointed out, reports are NOT automatic warns, and many reports are simply ignored as they do not meet moderator criteria for actions. For instance, I've reported Alyster's propaganda post on GPWC, calling (jocularly) for Roquentin to be castrated due to excessive Guinea Pig reproduction. This piece of propaganda has not been removed. Likewise, even if posts merit warning points, sometimes they're 0-point verbal warnings.

 

In other words, while I felt this topic deserved discussion, the quantity of effort at defending against a possible warn was unnecessary. If this had been a game report, it would have been quite understandable, but Soup Kitchen's posters turned this around into an inquisition on myself. This is not to be unexpected given Chaos' proficiency in perception and narrative control, but I'm just pointing out that Soup Kitchen posters are using hammers over ants.

 

=====

 

The third part of the explanation is concerning what is being reported itself. The thread on the "Memesphere"-Fark NAP was not beneficial to KERCHTOG$, of which Soup Kitchen / Kevanovia is a part, and seguing the topic into a discussion on my use of VM after sustained combat would have been beneficial to KERCHTOG$.

 

In response to the banter, I immediately posted a rebuttal, while slightly aware of how the conversation shifted. When the Afrika Korps poster chimed in, I contacted him via Discord to discuss the subject and posted that we agreed on his assessment. I noticed afterwards that responding in such a way, the topic would have shifted the thread into one more favorable to KERCHTOG$. So I re-edited the response post, told Kevanovia that he was being reported for thread derailment, that I would not take what I assumed to be bait, and that if he wanted to continue the line of conversation he should open a separate thread.

 

The reason I assume it to be bait, for instance, is that I am considered a Noctis-level shitposter. Noctis's particular behavior is that when he's turned upon, he usually engages in prolonged arguments that usually get downvoted. We have seen something like that here, haven't we? But it's not in the thread itself, i.e, the thread derailment either did not occur or was not prolonged because I caught onto it quickly.

 

Afterwards, as mentioned in the first part of this explanation, Kevanovia posted a rebuttal to the forum report claim, I explained why his scenario was wrong, invited him to continue the discussion elsewhere, and indicated I would not discuss the forum report subject on that thread. Afterwards, a Soup Kitchen poster made a forked post, addressing the theme, then also producing content I reported for flamebait and thread derailment.

 

Given what I've described above, I think there's a strong chance that there was intent to achieve thread derailment. On the other hand, it could simply be normal forum behavior in light of previous policy standards (lax enforcement).

 

This isn't much of my concern. As I've suggested previously, the point of reporting is to modify poster behavior. I don't really care whether Kevanovia and the Soup Kitchen posters reported received no warn, a 0-point verbal warn, or a 1-point warn. What I do care about is if Kevanovia and Soup Kitchen are more careful in the future, observe forum rules, and take care not to derail threads. As the "Memesphere"-FARK NAP thread has died, while it is not a completely successful report on my part, it's good enough. They're not spending their time to try to turn it into an inquisition on my VM (and if they did, I'd simply report or ignore the flamebaiting), and I'm satisfied with that.

Edited by Inst
Grammar
  • Downvote 5

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You’re trying to set up scenarios into moderation ‘gotcha’ moments, which is not what this game is supposed to be about.

There was a thread created that was about the current war. You are someone (by your own admission) that shitposts about our coalition. I pointed out the irony of you constantly shitposting (to a shitpost you made earlier in the thread) using the topic in the thread (the war) to make my point. Just because I made a post that you describe as “bait to derail” doesn’t mean I should be punished merely because my post gave you the desire to derail the thread.

I can tell you right now that moderation doesn’t give a shit about ‘Soup Kitchen’ or ‘Coalition B/A’ or whatever. You keep bringing up political points, it’s irrelevant. They’re here to moderate behavior, not politics.

I would beg for the warn to shut Inst up. However, it I lay down and take it - it would set the standard for Inst, among other people who want to feel important, to follow in the future and therefore create an even bigger headache for everyone.

Edited by Kevanovia
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

image.gif.d80770bf646703bba00c14ad52088af9.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Kevanovia said:

You’re trying to set up scenarios into moderation ‘gotcha’ moments, which is not what this game is supposed to be about.

There was a thread created that was about the current war. You are someone (by your own admission) that shitposts about our coalition. I pointed out the irony of you constantly shitposting (to a shitpost you made earlier in the thread) using the topic in the thread (the war) to make my point. Just because I made a post that you describe as “bait to derail” doesn’t mean I should be punished merely because my post gave you the desire to derail the thread.

I can tell you right now that moderation doesn’t give a shit about ‘Soup Kitchen’ or ‘Coalition B/A’ or whatever. You keep bringing up political points, it’s irrelevant. They’re here to moderate behavior, not politics.

I would beg for the warn to shut Inst up. However, it I lay down and take it - it would set the standard for Inst, among other people who want to feel important, to follow in the future and therefore create an even bigger headache for everyone.

That's sort of the point of KERCHTOG$ forums behavior, isn't it? You haven't read anything I've said about how I want you to stop thread derailing behavior.

 

As I've said, I personally do not care whether the warns are given or not. I encourage everyone to report posts that seems to be in violation of forum rules, and you've said as much you don't want forum rule violations to be reported aggressively. The present policy implementation gives zero feedback on whether a given report has been penalized or not, so for all I know, you got a single forum warn point or a 0-point verbal warning and are hiding it. For me, the report outcome doesn't matter, it just matters that the report is made.

 

I would beg for the warn to shut Inst up. However, it I lay down and take it - it would set the standard for Inst, among other people who want to feel important, to follow in the future and therefore create an even bigger headache for everyone.

 

I want to address this in particular. In PnW, unlike in other games, players have no obligation to report rules violations. Consequently, some rule violations are not reported or addressed, and I think things have gotten so bad that Alex has made a statement in Discord to the effect that players should remember that the player on the other side is a human being, and that players should behave with civility.

 

When the issue was debated on the forums, the moderator line was "use the report post feature, we usually act only if the post is reported." Obviously, some of these reports will not be acted upon, but it's better than having posts that should be addressed not be addressed because people assume moderation does nothing.

 

And no matter how moderators respond, I will continue reporting posts I feel violate the forum rules. I suggest you do so too, even to me, and even to people I would not like warned.

Edited by Inst
  • Downvote 1

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also wish to make a final comment here. If you were convinced of your innocence, you could simply have pointed out that you know the rules, you think you did nothing wrong, and that moderators would act in an appropriate way (i.e, ignore the report). You would not have needed to resort to personal attacks or to try to paint me as the perpetrator (I have invited Pasky and others to put up a thread if they'd like on my use of "moderation as a weapon").

 

But of course, I think character should not play into moderation judgment. The questions should be: "Did Kevanovia break the forum rules by thread derailment / flamebait?" If he did, he gets warned, if he did, he doesn't get warned, and I don't need to know the outcome. As you have made the counter accusation (and I assume with a confidential "report post" as well), the question also is, "Did Inst break the rules by thread derailment?" But these questions are independent of each other, and how they are answered, besides the information given in this thread, has nothing to do with me.

  • Downvote 1

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.